September 3rd, 2010
This certification is not really a big deal for the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) making it, and it DOES NOT expressly make the CLEO legally responsible for the weapon or your use of it, or its theft. I have not heard of any successful case against a CLEO for signing the certification for a gun that was criminally misused. That is, in my opinion, a spurious excuse for not signing. There is even a case addressing this issue, Searcy v. City of Dayton, 38 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 1994). The estate of a drug dealer murdered by an off duty Dayton, Ohio, police officer with his personally owned “Mac-11″ machine gun sued the city that employed the cop. One of the grounds for suit was the police chief’s having signed the transfer paperwork for the murder weapon. The court held that that claim should have been dismissed by the trial court; without a showing that somehow the act of signing was negligent, (under Ohio law) and led to the harm (murder) complained of, there was no cause of action. Signing the form was not negligent in itself, nor was it a reckless or wanton act, as the trial court claimed the plaintiff could try to prove at trial. Although this case is only directly binding on the area of the 6th circuit, and need not bind state courts, the court recognized what common sense, and the certification say, the person signing does not open himself up to any liability by doing so.